RCR - All Discussion Points

These notable quotes, published in journals, reports and other documents produced by scientific organizations, associations, and government agencies, may be useful in stimulating discussions about research integrity, research misconduct, and the responsible conduct of research.

"By integrity of the research process, the panel means the adherence by scientists and their institutions to honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, evaluating, and reporting research activities. The research process includes the construction of hypotheses; the development of experimental and theoretical paradigms; the collection, analysis, and handling of data; the generation of new ideas, findings, and theories through experimentation and analysis; timely communication and publication; refinement of results through replication and extension of the original work; peer review; and the training and supervision of associates and students." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1: 17, NAS, 1992.

"Integrity in science is perhaps better seen today as an extension of current concerns with quality--and the concept of quality represents a potent framework for fostering moral behavior as well as professional practices. If shoddy research means sloppy science as well as dishonest exchanges, then a concern for quality in research may create incentives to address the type of wrongdoing that falls short of serious misconduct but still disturbs and creates a sense of unease and dissatisfaction with the practice of science." Rosemary Chalk, Senior Program Officer, IOM. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:181, 1999.

"Quality...refers to the rigor with which experiments are designed and carried out; statistical analyses performed, and results accurately recorded and reported, with credit given where it is due. Integrity in research means that the reported results are honest and accurate and are in keeping with generally accepted research practices. The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 6, IOM, 1989.

"The Association of American Universities believes it is vital for leaders of the academic community to ensure that research conducted on our campuses meets the highest standards of ethics and integrity and promotes the public health." Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest. Association of American Universities, October 2001.

"The argument that replication and peer review will guarantee the integrity of all research is incorrect. Many studies are not replicated in detail (it would be highly inefficient if they were). Trust in researchers' descriptions of their methods and findings has been fundamental to scientific communication. In the past, scientific skepticism has not extended to the honesty of an investigator's factual statements, but has been directed toward interpretation of reported results." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 18, IOM, 1989.

"...in all these efforts the criteria for professional scientific integrity were similar; even if the individual was your best friend, you asked to see the data; and if the data was in summary form, you asked to see the raw data. It was common to challenge a colleague's claim that he had carried out some procedure very carefully or precisely." Jonathan King, Professor of Molecular Biology, M.I.T. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:215, 1999.

"Though the subjective and social components of science are real and often critical, the striving to determine the truths about nature independently of these variables is one of the most enduring values of science. This is not based on trust, but on evidence, rigor, and honesty. The honesty is established by not calling upon trust, but demonstrating that one did what one said one did." Jonathan King, Professor of Molecular Biology, M.I.T. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:216, 1999. "The claim that scientific integrity is based on trust is often an effort to avoid public scrutiny. From those outside the endeavor it rings bells; as when in a business transaction an accountant or treasurer tells you, "Trust us, you don't need to see the books." Jonathan King, Professor of Molecular Biology, M. I. T. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:216, 1999.

"The scientific endeavor is based on vigilance, not trust." Jonathan King, Professor of Molecular Biology, M.I.T. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5:215-217.

"The honesty is established by not calling upon trust, but demonstrating that one did what one said one did." Jonathan King, Professor of Molecular Biology, M.I.T., Science and Engineering Ethics 5:216, 1999.

"We need to know more about what motivates scientific misconduct and what can protect against it. Alas, the thin database on the etiology of fraud yields only a few hints." Donald Kennedy, Science 289:1137, 2000.

"A broad range of factors in the research environment have been suggested as possible causes of misconduct in science. Such factors include (a) funding and career pressures of the contemporary research environment...; (b) inadequate institutional oversight; (c) inappropriate forms of collaborative arrangements between academic scientists and commercial firms; (d) inadequate training in the methods and traditions of science; (e) the increasing scale and complexity of the research environment, leading to the erosion of peer review, mentorship, and educational processes in science; and (f) the possibility that misconduct in science is an expression of a broader social pattern of deviation from traditional norms." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:30, NAS, 1992. "One thing institutions learn is that their reputation is much better protected by being very rigorous about these (misconduct) cases, rather than trying to cover them up or trying to push them down. Taking these cases seriously becomes the reputation-protecting strategy of an institution." Margaret Dale, Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, Harvard Medical School, in Ethical Challenges and Practical Solutions for Managers in Research: Workshop Proceedings, p. 57, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 2000.

"Whether or not you agree that trimming and cooking are likely to lead on to downright forgery, there is little to support the argument that trimming and cooking are less reprehensible and more forgivable. Whatever the rationalization is, in the last analysis one can no more be a little bit dishonest than one can be a little bit pregnant." Honor in Science, p. 14. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 1997.

"One area where carelessness or dishonesty is particularly likely to occur is in the misuse of statistical techniques. No scientist can avoid the use of such techniques, and all scientists have an obligation to be aware of the limitations of the techniques they use, just as they are expected to know how to protect samples from contamination or to recognize inadequacies in their equipment." Honor in Science, p. 18. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 1997.

"Scientific fraud resembles financial fraud in that it can bring undeserved remuneration and power, a salient difference being that in scientific fraud the ill-gotten gains are automatically institutionally laundered." Herbert N. Arst, Jr., Imperial College School of Medicine, London. Nature 403:478, 2000.

"Our editors invited a distinguished scientist in the field to write a Perspective on the paper. The author now discovers to her embarrassment, that what she wrote was a thoughtful evaluation of a non-experiment. Scientists unknown to us relied on meaningless results, perhaps altering their own research plans as a consequence, and busy peer reviewers wasted valuable time. There is an even heavier cost: Each such case represents another depreciation of trust, not only within our community but also on the part of our public patrons." Donald Kennedy, Science 289:1137, 2000.

"All honest scientists are victims of scientists who commit misconduct. Jobs in science, research funds and journal space are all scarce. Every job occupied, every grant received and every paper published by someone who engages in misconduct deprives at least one honest scientist of an opportunity to which he or she was entitled." Herbert N. Arst, Jr., Imperial College School of Medicine, London. Nature 403:478, 2000.

"No nation's scientific community is immune to the various obvious and not so obvious forms of misconduct; thus, there needs to be ongoing international discussion of these issues. Strengthening the integrity of the research enterprise requires recognition that ethical hooliganism, be it intended or not, is intolerable." Floyd E. Bloom. Science 287:589, 2000.

"One of the most difficult situations that a researcher can encounter is to see or suspect that a colleague has violated the ethical standards of the research community. It is easy to do nothing, but someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act." On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd edition, p. 18. National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1995.

"Members of the scientific community with knowledge of research misconduct have an ethical responsibility to come forward. But few are likely to fulfill this responsibility in the absence of a system that provided a fair review of concerns and effective protection from retaliation." Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, p. 21. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995

"The Commission believes that the best protection for whistleblowers and witnesses lies not in federal regulation, but in an institutional culture that is committed to integrity in research. To establish such a culture, committed institutional leadership is an essential component." Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, p. 22. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.

"The important role that individuals scientists can play in disclosing incidents of misconduct in science should be acknowledged. Individuals who, in good conscience, report suspected misconduct in science deserve support and protection. Their efforts, as well as the efforts of those who participate in misconduct proceedings, can be invaluable in preserving the integrity of the research process. When necessary, serious and considered whistle-blowing is an act of courage that should be supported by the entire research community." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:15, NAS, 1992.

"I am convinced that the scientific community, if it wants to enjoy relative freedom from regulatory oversight, must itself address the issues of the extent of misconduct and...questionable practices, as well as the means for achieving proper quality control and self-audit." Kenneth J. Ryan, Chairman, Commission on Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:274, 1999.

"Until very recently, governmental and private institutions assumed that the principle of self-regulation was sufficient to promote and maintain the integrity and quality of federally funded research. Recent cases of scientific fraud, however, have challenged the wisdom of relying entirely upon investigator honesty and unwritten collegial standards as the sole means of assuring integrity and quality in research. These cases have fostered a perception that existing institutional and professional controls have been inadequate to assure integrity in federally funded research." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 18, IOM, 1989.

"To maintain the privilege of self-regulation, research institutions must exercise vigilance and diligence in examining the conduct of their own members." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:11, NAS, 1992.

"The self-regulatory system in science, which has evolved over the centuries to foster creativity and scientific achievement, may need to evolve further to meet the demands for public accountability that accompany government, foundation, and industrial support of scientific research." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:19, NAS, 1992.

"...there are liabilities to the new aggressive commercialization of universities and nonprofit research centers. These liabilities are subtle and more diffuse than the benefits. The adverse consequences manifest themselves over a long time period, and they rarely produce a dramatic outcome. Nonetheless, the transformation in American universities as a result of the new ethos of commercialization will have pernicious effects." Sheldon Krimsky. Science in the Private Interest. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. p. 3.

"My contention is that the most significant loss in permitting academic scientists to pursue technology transfer, to establish new companies in partnership with the university, to exploit intellectual property of scientific knowledge is that is turns the university into a different type of institution. The greatest losses are not to the academic professions or to the scholarly publications, but rather to the social role played by universities in American life." Sheldon Krimsky. Science in the Private Interest. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. p. 3.

"When universities and federally supported nonprofit research institutions are turned into private enterprise zones, they lose their status as independent and disinterested centers of learning. Moreover, they no longer provide as favorable an environment for nurturing public interest science these multifarious contributions of academic scientists to all levels of government and across vulnerable communities that address social and environmental problems." Sheldon Krimsky. Science in the Private Interest. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. p. 3-4.

"The importance of research productivity in academic promotion exacerbates scientific competitiveness; it would help if institutional rules emphasized quality over quantity." Donald Kennedy. Science 289:1137, 2000.

"...institutions have important responsibilities that cannot be left to individual investigators, shunted to journal editors or the professional societies, or allowed to pass to government and research funders by default. Institutions do not need to develop new codes of behavior, but they need to demonstrate more active interest in assuring faithfulness to the ethics and ideals that already form the foundation of the ethics of science in the academic sector." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 87, IOM, 1989.

"The partnership between research universities and their principal research sponsors–including the federal government–must be based on the conviction that universities are accountable for the research they perform." Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest. Association of American Universities, October 2001.

"For research universities to retain their standing as independent arbiters of knowledge, research must continue to be conducted according to the highest ethical standards." Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest. Association of American Universities, October 2001.

"Universities should not rely upon formal complaints or scientific misconduct as the sole source of monitoring the integrity and quality of the research conducted under their auspices. They need continuing mechanisms to review and evaluate the research and training environment of their institution. They also need personnel who think critically about the integrity and quality of the research environment and ways in which it could be improved. " The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 31, IOM, 1989.

"Administrative officials within the research institution also bear responsibility for ensuring that good scientific practices are observed in units of appropriate jurisdiction and that balanced reward systems appropriately recognize research quality, integrity, teaching, and mentorship." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:8, NAS, 1992.

"In recognizing that their faculty and research staff are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the research process, institutions should retain and accept certain explicit obligations. Principal among these is providing a research environment that fosters honesty, integrity, and a sense of community. Research institutions should also recognize that risks that are inherent in self-regulation and strive to involve outside parties, when appropriate, in investigating or evaluating the conduct of their own members." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:78, NAS, 1992.

"...an institutional reputation for careful investigation and a culture favoring individual responsibility for research integrity and discouraging ‘honorary' authorship are essential. The importance of research productivity in academic promotion exacerbates scientific competitiveness; it would help if institutional rules emphasized quality over quantity." Donald Kennedy. Science 289:1137, 2000.

"Cases of misconduct in science involving fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism breach the trust that allows scientists to build on others' work, as well as eroding the trust that allows policymakers and others to make decisions based on scientific and objective evidence. The inability or refusal of research institutions to address such cases can undermine both the integrity of the research process and self-governance by the research community." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:20, NAS, 1992.

"...the absence of explicit institutional standards allows the research system to tolerate substandard activities by a small number of individual investigators who fail to observe generally accepted practices. Furthermore, the absence of a mechanism to enforce standards leads to a perception that the institution or the profession is unwilling or unable to correct abusive practices. The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 2, IOM, 1989.

"The committee identified a need for higher professional standards at all levels in the research system. There was consensus that, although the fundamental values and standards of the research community are appropriate, the expression and implementation of these standards are insufficient to promote responsible research practices in an increasingly large, heterogeneous, and competitive research environment." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 21, IOM, 1989.

"But the responsibilities of the research community and research institutions in assuring individual compliance with scientific principles, traditions, and codes of ethics are not well defined. In recent years, the absence of formal statements by research institutions of the principles that should guide research conducted by their members has prompted criticism that scientists and their institutions lack a clearly identifiable means to ensure the integrity of the research process." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:39, NAS, 1992.

"An environment that protects and nurtures research integrity is one in which questions can be freely raised. All individuals actually or potentially involved in maintaining scientific integrity need the security of knowing that open-mindedness and fair procedures are ensured." Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, p. 24. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.

"...in the long run, the quality of the research environment may be more damaged by sloppy or careless research practices and apathy than by incidents of research fraud or other serious scientific misconduct...preliminary studies and workshop discussions suggest that the research community tolerates too many substandard practices. These abuses must be corrected to restore a sense of moral integrity and professionalism in research." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 21, IOM, 1989.

"Although the committee believes that serious misconduct in science is rare and is ultimately a manifestation of individual deviance, it concludes that institutions fail to detect and correct early deviant behavior, primarily because of an excessively permissive research environment that tolerates sloppy and careless practices." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 3, IOM, 1989.

"Several sociological analyses of selected professions...have concluded that the most significant determinant of compliance with professional norms is the social setting of professional practice. In keeping with this finding, there is a real need for scientific institutions to address the social environment of their faculty, staff, and students and to identify organizational elements, incentives, and barriers that shape their understanding of, and adherence to, responsible research standards." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 33, IOM, 1989.

"The research environment is stressful and yet conducive to the remarkable productivity of researchers. The rewards for successful research are greater now than in the past, but today's rapid pace of development may undermine critical internal checks and balances and may increase opportunities for misrepresentation or distortion of research results." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:9, NAS, 1992.

"Authorship and collaboration problems are a serious threat to the research enterprise and to the motivation of young scientists, especially when they involve misappropriation of ideas and data." Floyd E. Bloom. Science 287:589, 2000.

"An important but inadequately applied principle of collaboration is to set up a plan, best written down at the outset, as to who will do what and how credit will be attributed." Floyd E. Bloom. Science 287:589, 2000.

"This difficulty (in developing a coordinated, team-based approach to research) reflects, in large part, the fact that the entire reward and advancement process in universities focuses on individual accomplishment rather than collaborative effort. In this system, credit is attributed largely to the team leader and not to others. Inevitably the result is that researchers seek to burnish their individual credibility, rather than necessarily attacking scientific problems in the most efficient manner." R. L. Juliano and G. S. Oxford. Academic Medicine 76: 1008, October 2001.

"...most students leave their graduate and postdoctoral training positions without having participated in the form of collective, team-based research organization that is likely to be most productive, and perhaps most personally rewarding, in the future." R. L. Juliano and G. S. Oxford. Academic Medicine 76:1008, October 2001.

"The total number of his papers, in a brisk scientific realm where really clever people published five times a year, was not more than twenty-five in thirty years. They were all exquisitely finished, all easily reduplicated and checked by the doubtfulest critics." Professor Max Gottlieb. Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, p. 123.

"The difficulty the (Beasley) committee encounters in this domain reflects, as their report recognized, the absence of a community consensus about the nagging issue of coauthor responsibility. It's hard to find a silver lining in the cloud case by the Schön affair, but it would be good if it were to trigger a thoughtful examination of the issue. The committee said it did ‘not endorse the view that each co-author is responsible for the entirety of a collaborative endeavor...' Well, isn't each one getting part of the credit? And if the benefits are enjoyed jointly and severally by all authors, then shouldn't the liability be joint and several too? The answer has to come in the form of a decision by the scientific community, which now need to attend to the task." Donald Kennedy. Science 209:295. October 18, 2002.

"Occasionally a name is included in a list of authors even though that person had little or nothing to do with the content of a paper. Such ‘honorary authors' dilute the credit due the people who actually did the work, inflate the credentials of those so ‘honored', and make the proper attribution of credit more difficult." On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd edition, p. 14. National Academy Press,1995.

"Authorship and collaboration problems are a serious threat to the research enterprise and to the motivation of young scientists, especially when they involve misappropriation of ideas and data." Floyd E. Bloom. Science 287:589, 2000.

"Authorship of a scientific report is a responsibility as well as a privilege. It implies that a person has contributed essentially and substantially to the study and is able and willing to defend the work publicly. This does not mean that each author participated in all parts of the study, but it does mean that all authors have familiarized themselves with the general principles of all aspects of the study." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 34, IOM, 1989.

"Authors should. also realize that disclosing financial support does not automatically diminish the credibility of the research. However, failure to disclosed a competing financial interest that is subsequently discovered immediately opens the authors to questions about objectivity." Thomas J. Goehl, Editor-in-Chief, Environmental Health Perspectives, V. 112, No. 14, October 2004, p. A 788.

"Most of the incentive structure for universities weighs in favor of turning a blind eye toward faculty and institutional conflicts of interest. Unless all parties agree to some form of reasonable accountability, transparency, and sanctions, the use of guidelines to turn the tide away from institutional complicity and neglect of the problem is unlikely to succeed." Sheldon Krimsky. Science in the Private Interest. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. p. 51.

"The relationship between conflict of interest and bias has been downplayed within the scientific community to protect the new entrepreneurial ethos in academia." Sheldon Krimsky. Science in the Private Interest. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. p. 139.

"Science and clinical journals as well as book publishers have considerable ground to cover to establish transparency for the conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, and editors; and to prevent the most egregious conflicts from showing up on the pages of their journals." Sheldon Krimsky. Science in the Private Interest. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. p. 174.

"Research universities are concerned about financial conflict of interest (individual and institutional) because it strikes to the heart of the integrity of the institution and the public's confidence in that integrity." Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest." Association of American Universities, October 2001.

"Splendid! You have craftsmanship. Oh, there is an art in science–for a few. You Americans, so many of you–all full with ideas, but you are impatient with the beautiful dullness of long labors." Professor Max Gottlieb speaking to Martin Arrowsmith in Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, p. 37.

"No, I have done nothing except be unpleasant to people that claim too much, but I have dreams of real discoveries some day. And–No. Not five times in five years doI have students who understand craftsmanship and precision and maybe some big imagination in hypotheses. I t'ink perhaps you may have them. If I can help you–So!" Professor Max Gottlieb to Martin Arrowsmith. Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, p. 38.

"The communication of the ideals of science, its values and methods, traditionally occurred through individual discussions between senior investigators and students. Given the increased size, complexity, and heterogeneity of the research training process, the committee believes that reliance on these discussions alone is not sufficient to provide effective instruments of professionalization and education." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 20, IOM, 1989.

"Presumably, an institution's self-assessment would include asking individual investigators what kinds of things they do in their research groups to encourage integrity. What a change of emphasis that would be! Although training in the responsible conduct of science exists in various formats at many research institutions, it hardly ever occurs within individual research groups. As long as the apprentice style of science continues, young scientists will be influenced most by what their mentors say and do in practice, not by what professor teach them in classrooms." Frederick Grinnell, Professor of cell biology and director of the program in ethics in science and medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B15, October 4, 2002.

"Laboratory chiefs should insist that raw data be preserved within notebooks and other repositories in a way that is readily interpretable by qualified researchers beyond those directly responsible for conducting the research." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 34, IOM, 1989.

"The panel concluded that there was no generally shared set of norms about the respective rights of principal investigators, academic institutions, trainees, other related investigators or sponsoring agencies to inspect and use the data and even less agreement about who should be responsible for retention of the data." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 79, IOM, 1989.

"And the most important part of experimentation is not doing the experiment but making notes, very accurate quantitative notes in ink. I am told that a great many clever people feel they can keep notes in their heads. I have often observed with pleasure that such persons do not have heads in which to keep their notes. This is very good, because thus the world never sees their results and science is not encumbered with them." Professor Max Gottlieb in Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, p. 34.

"Individual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are corrected when they are recognized. Editors of scientific journals share these last two responsibilities." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:7, NAS, 1992.

"Research mentors, laboratory directors, department heads, and senior faculty are responsible for defining, explaining, exemplifying, and requiring adherence to the value systems of their institutions." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:7, NAS, 1992.

"As science becomes more closely linked to economic and political objectives, the processes by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one reason for scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which they foster responsible research practices." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:7,. NAS, 1992.

"Scientists are no longer perceived exclusively as guardians of objective truth, but also as smart promoters of their own interests in a media-driven marketplace." Benny Haerlin, Greenpeace International. Nature, 400:499, 1999.

"But on night duty, alone, he had to face the self he had been afraid to uncover, and he was homesick for the laboratory, for the thrill of uncharted discoveries, the quest below the surface and beyond the moment, the search for fundamental laws which the scientist (however blasphemously and colloquially he may describe it) exalts above temporary healing as the religious exalts the nature and terrible glory of God above pleasant daily virtues. With this sadness there was envy that he should be left out of things, that others should go ahead of him, ever surer in technique, more widely aware of the phenomena of biological chemistry, more deeply daring to explain laws at which the pioneers had but fumbled and hinted." Martin Arrowsmith in Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, p. 118.

"Not once did he talk of results of the sort called "practical"; not once die he cease warring on the post hoc propter hoc conclusions which still make up most medical lore; not once die he fail to be hated by his colleagues, who were respectful to his face, uncomfortable in feeling his ironic power, but privily joyous to call him Mephisto, Diabolist, Killjoy, Pessimist, Destructive Critic, Flippant Cynic, Scientific Bounder Lacking in Dignity and Seriousness, Intellectual Snob, Anarchist, Atheist, Jew. They said, with reason, that he was so devoted to Pure Science, to art for art's sake, that he would rather have people die by the right therapy than be cured by the wrong. Having built at shrine for humanity, he wanted to kick out of it all mere human beings." Professor Max Gottlieb. Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, p. 122.

"External peer review is essential in measuring integrity–as it is in the practice of science itself. Individuals and institutional alike can aim to be objective but nonetheless be folled by illusion or self-deception." Frederick Grinnell, Professor of cell biology and director of the program in ethics in science and medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B15, October 4, 2002.

"Of those who knew about it (the discovery of xerography) at least 50 percent thought it was a stupid idea and that Battelle should never have gotten into it. It just goes to prove that if you've got something unique, you don't take a poll." Russell Dayton, an engineer at Battelle Memorial Institute, quoted in Making Copies by David Owen, Smithsonian, August 2004, p. 95.

"Editors of scientific journals have a duty to report allegations of misconduct to the relevant institutions; to assist in the resolution of allegations of misconduct; and, where appropriate, to correct the literature by publishing retractions that are clearly linked to the original fraudulent publications and that state the reasons for retraction." Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, p. 20. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.

"Plainly, journals, as the places for which research results are headed, have some responsibility (for research integrity). Although they cannot create deception-proof peer review; they can treat retractions honestly and forthrightly. They can express the community's interest in the trustworthiness of results and close their pages to transgressors. They should also praise responsible actions, especially when those carry personal costs." Donald Kennedy, Science 289:1137, 2000.

"The topics that require immediate attention by scientific journals include repetitive publication, supernumerary authorship, institutional responsibilities for disclosure and notification of research misconduct in publication, the use and misuse of peer review, and the appropriate response to suspicions or confirmations of misconduct in published work or work submitted for publication." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 37, IOM, 1989.

"Journals have an obligation to publish retractions of published reports that have been found erroneous by the original authors or that have been declared fraudulent by appropriate authorities at the research institutions." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 38, IOM, 1989.

"The committee recommends that science journal editors develop a uniform system for reporting serious violations of professional standards to research institutions so that institutional officers can be informed in a timely manner of the nature of these complaints." The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences, p. 38, IOM, 1989.

"Scientific societies and scientific journals should continue to provide and expand resources and forums to foster responsible research practices and to address misconduct in science and questionable research practices." Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1:16, NAS, 1992.